Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
The Aryan Problem |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
pathan 
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 21-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: The Aryan ProblemPosted: 22-Apr-2007 at 15:48 |
|
could it be that the ancient indians considered ancient persians as being noble, wise and gave them higher social status and thus the word aryan made its way in to the indian literature as per being considered as noble, wise etc..??. The reason i am saying this is that ancient persians were indeed very ahead of their times in almost every field. Most of the worlds inventions today have thier roots in persia.
|
|
 |
|
|
AlokaParyetra
Samurai 
Joined: 28-Aug-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 140 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 15:59 |
|
Any evidence of that? And regardless, like i said, the oldest usage of the word Airya in the Avesta lack any racial connotation. The race aspect of it was only adopted later.
|
|
|
|
|
Azat
Samurai
Joined: 22-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 110 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 22:25 |
Alok
I asked Have Tamils ever called them Aryans or Aryiar if you mean that same, pls be clear.
Second Anus and Druhyu are mentioned as a people with their geographical locations matching with these people if I am wrong just tell me what they mean than .
Thirdly aryans are clearly defined as living in an area having Vindhya mountain as its southern boundary ,you can refer any Indian scholar regarding that.
And lastly I have not used word in racial terms but only for groups who in their antiquity called themselves as Aryans and it was never used for Tamils as such let us be clear on that count.
And if we be little open northern and southern people particularly Jatts of punjab and Thevarrs of Tamils do belong to different races until if we go back to one common ancestor of all mankind.
Ps Pathan ,Aryans were not Iranis which was a branch of them their original home was AryanVizo (original homeland somewhere in Azerbaijan or Russian Steppes)
|
|
|
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl 
Joined: 06-Apr-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 287 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 09:18 |
|
As I have been busy with my work, I could not respond immediately.
But, now I find that somebody is using my name or addressing me, as if I am responding -
"You are confusing here Mr.Rao .
Aryans means a a group of people who followed vedic religion intially and called themselves Aryans as such. they were Scythian Median Iranian Armenian Parthian but not Tamilian if you want to convey so" (Azat's postiung above).
I request moderator to clarify. Edited by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao - 23-Apr-2007 at 09:20 |
|
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
mughal
Janissary 
Joined: 10-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 10:12 |
|
he is saying that tamils are not aryan, or have anything to with the aryans.
|
|
|
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke 
Digital Prometheus Joined: 20-May-2005 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 1791 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 10:14 |
|
Yes, I see nothing wrong with it: he's simply disagreeing with your post from 20-Apr-2007 at 08:04, which was only 4 posts or so above his response.
|
|
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
|
|
|
|
Azat
Samurai
Joined: 22-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 110 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 11:16 |
|
Thanks Decebal and Mughal for clarifying which was so obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul 
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 07:51 |
|
1. The suggestion that ancient Indians / Tamils considered Iranians noble etc., is totally irrelevant and out of context. 2. No doubt, popular hypotheses make even Dravidians entering 3. Existing archeological / maritime contacts prove their connection with the Greeks / Romans, but not with Iranians. 4. In fact, there are Tamil nationalist scholars and pundits who assert that Tamil is the first language from which all other languages evolved. You may or may not believe that there have been western scholars who subscribe to such hypotheses and theories. 5. The fact that the presence of Pallavas has been felt at far away places like 6. Interestingly, even the Indian and Arabian naval literature (of medieval period) point to Maldieves for ship-building. So such connection is intriguing and interesting for scholars to study. 7. If we keep the race concept away and think with patience, many riddles may be solved. The confusion of race with language, script and language etc., have also to be avoided. 8. What is the tradition of Iranians about the concept of South, Piturs, Piturloka, offering offered to forefathers who hail from south etc? |
|
|
|
|
mughal
Janissary
Joined: 10-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 12:05 |
|
All of the stuff you have posted you have to give evidence for, you cant just claim these things. |
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-May-2007 at 09:45 |
|
Tell me what evidence you want?
I can give, if you ask specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 287 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 21:05 |
|
Now, a "Tamil" has come to say that "Tamils" were in IVC and they were ruling Kashmir also. I think then, the problem is solved. As propounders and propagandists have already accepted, now, would all of us conclude that there were neither "Aryans" nor "Dravidians"? |
|
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Azat
Samurai
Joined: 22-Apr-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 110 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 22:30 |
Have some elements of truth in the sense that there was no one group called Dravidian as such.
Dravidian basically was a collective regional term without a collective ethnic identity to back up as such usually denoting people related to austronegroid group living in southern part of peninsula.
Term Aryans was basically applied to people who adopted /followed Vedic religion as this religion entered from northwest initially people of northwest were referred Aryans ,slowly people of gangetic planes too started calling them Aryans as it was spread to these areas via native brahamns .So while earlier only northwestern priests /magi/brahman were aryans later brahmns of ganga yamuna doab along with other people started calling them aryans as they adopted vedic faith but basically these ganga yamuna brahmns were not same as northwestern sarswat brahmans are well proved by genetic findings by Sangmitra and Kasyap et al..
Still later Aryavarta was extended to Vindhya boundary but simultaneously people of northwestern part started adopting buddhism popularised by Guataum Bhuddha and these original Aryans when they left vedic faith were taken a separate group during the period of purans so much so that land of Srasvati Sindhu that was the place for compiling vedas were treated as land of Melechha clearly saying that since these orignal parma kastriyas left there religious faith they are now malecchas by purans and manusamirti .
So fact is that Aryan as such does not denote a ethnic identity but conveys a religious identity( vedic religion)instead .
|
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 05:29 |
|
Brahmins need not be from north, they were there in south also.
Sangam literature describes more than two dozen brahmin groups with specific names and thety are not "Aryans" or "Dravidians".
Vedic religion was followed in the south also. In fact most of the Vedic composers hail from the South.
According to Kumarikkandam hypothesis / theory, they spread from south to north. There have been many literary / internal evidences in the Sangam literature in this effect. Even today, the Brahmins hailing from the South preserve all sakas of Vedic hymns by memory. Scholars like Avadhanulu of Hyderabad could record Vedic chantings from them. He expressed his surprise that certain specific sakas of hymns could be recited only by south Indian Brahmins.
Therefore, the popular belief that "Aryans" / "Brahmins" came to India through Kyber / Bolan passes etc., is totally upset by this fact / reality.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 06:44 |
|
Just during browsing, I come across this interesting website, which contains photocopies of the basic works of European Indologists / writers, who floated the myth of "Aryans":
4M reasearch
You can find,
Under "Aryan Invasion Fantasy", one can find the following:
Aryan Invasion Fantasy Origin of Aryan Race Theory (Abbe Dubois) Bible and the Aryan Race Theory (William Jones) Development of Aryan Race Theory (Max Muller) Proof of Aryan Race Theory (Stanley Wolpert) Origin of Master Aryan Race Theory (Scanned pages from Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies by Abbe J.A. Dubois. Manuscript first completed in 1806, English translation first published in 1816.) Dubois: We must undermine Hindu civilization Dubois says brahmins originated in Caucasus! Dubois introduces philology, says Gautama rhymes with Magog, brahmins descendents of Japheth! Dubois says Hinduism is just allegories Max Muller's prefatory note to Dubois' book Bible and the Aryan Race Theory Discourses delivered before the Asiatic Society, Vol. 2 (The first 10 links are from William Jones's discourse delivered in 1792, the last link is from his 1784 work.) Only surviving family after biblical deluge was Noah's family Yahweh created one pair of every species Entire earth populated with humans 2000 years after creation Mohammed lived less than 3000 years after creation Humans migrated from Central Asia Most ancient history written by Musah, humans sprang from 3 races Bible is history All humans are descended from Noah's three sons who survived biblical flood Indians descended from Noah's son Ham Babel was in Central Asia, humans descended from Noah's sons Vedas not written before biblical flood Development of Master Aryan Race Theory (Scanned pages from various works of Max Muller) Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas All langauges can be traced to Tower of Babel Science of Language, Vol. 1 Max Muller admits Aryan is euphemism for Japhetic Chips from a German Workshop, Vol. 1 Max Muller says Ophir (India) is populated by descendents of Japhet (Also see item titled "Ophir" in Bible is India on this page under Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Muller, Vol. 1.) Science of Language, Vol. 2 4000 years ago is very early period in history of the world I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens Best method is to look for Jewish tradition Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden! Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition (contd.) Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (or Sanskrit is dimmed version of Jewish tradition) Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (contd.) Contributions to the Science of Mythology, Vol. 1 Entire human history consists of past 6000 years (or Lord God made us 6000 years back) My Autobiography Christianity is a true historical event Comparative Mythology Theory of Evolution disproven forever! First ancestors of humans spoke same language as us A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature 1200 BCE was early period of human history Barbaric Negroes are an inferior race! Happy to assign recent date to Vedas Christianity is Higher Truth Max Muller explains the aim of philology Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Muller, Vol. 1 Vedas composed in 1000 BCE, but it need not be proved Muller writes to Darwin against evolution theory Muller writes to Darwin against evolution theory - contd. Muller explains that "proof by authority" is correct Muller to Darwin: Evolution not reflected in language, so it is wrong! Evolution is wrong - contd. India must be conquered Whose fault if Christianity does not overrun India? Account in Genesis is historical! Letter from Darwin Will lay down life for fall of Hinduism Overthrow Hinduism and bring in Christianity (Will lay down life . . . contd.) All that sprung from Vedas must be uprooted "Ophir" in Bible is India Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Muller, Vol. 2 Miracles are inevitable, Christ's resurrection is fact Muller's demand to Mozoomdar: Brahmo Samaj must convert to Christianity Muller's demand - contd. Second Letter to Mozoomdar Darwinism should be called "evolution-doctrine" Three Lectures on the Science of Language Discard all evidence except philological evidence Philology better than other sciences Jesuit explains Caucasus as origin of Aryans Propagation of Master Aryan Race Theory (Scanned pages from the works of Stanley Wolpert. Assumptions are highlighted in yellow, conclusions based on these assumptions in green, his logic system in red, and his evidence in blue.) A New History of India Stanley Wolpert: May be, therefore, it is! I feel, the details are must for anyone who discusses on "Aryan".
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 19:39 |
I'm not a sholar or anywhere near as well a read person as you but I agree with you 100%. The 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian' theories and two big generalisations which do not exist. Tamils never ruled kashmir, I don't think there is any mention of it in the Rajtarangini and there is no mention of Tamils in modern kashmir history. Kashmir for most of its history has been seperate to India proper. If we think about it logically, there are three routes into Kashmir Valley, one from Gurdaspur through Jammu, one from Muree and from Baltistan. Historically none of these three areas have ever been in Tamil rule, so to say Tamils ruled Kashmir is probably wrong :P. Also I'm probably generalising here, but I've been to Himachal Pradesh and well the people were very different to people in the Kashmir valley. Personally I didnt think any of the ones I saw looked Afghan/Iranian. They were light skinned but they had Indic features. Some probably could be taken as Afghan/Iranian, just like some Punjabis could, but the vast majority would not. Come to think of it, not much different to Jammu people. |
|
|
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 287 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2007 at 22:41 |
|
I think any discussion on Kashmir here would divert the issue.
Why can't we have it under "Asoka of Kashmir"?
|
|
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 09:34 |
|
Actually, categorization of Indians in historical as "Tamils" may lead to different understanding superficially.
As pointed out above, the connection of all Indians with any part of India and even beyond cannot be simply brushed aside as many social-religious-economic and other factors have intimate connection.
As Indians even now undertake Kasi-Rameswaram pilgrimage, Kasmiri kum-kum (already mentioned) used in the Sakti woirship etc., have such deep-rooted cultural elements.
|
|
|
|
|
betaab
Immortal Guard
Joined: 31-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Aug-2007 at 21:59 |
|
thier might be connections because of religious reasons, but there is no way tamils ruled all of india or kashmir. |
|
|
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended Joined: 09-Jun-2006 Location: India Online Status: Offline Posts: 315 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 06:50 |
|
We need not think about Indians differently on linguistic basis.
In those days, there is no question of Language speaking people ruling dominantly. Rather, the language of the Rulers might become dominant.
Indians were ruling Kashmir, irrespective of the fact, that it was ruled by Tamils or any language speaking people.
However, they were not divided based on language or considered as "Aryans" / "Dravidians".
The Tamil literature thus considers "Aryans" / "Ariyar" as the people of India / Bharat.
|
|
|
|
|
betaab
Immortal Guard
Joined: 31-Jul-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 10:13 |
|
why not think of them in linguistic terms? For example when the french were ruling england, it was clearly stated that it was ruled by the french.
Different lanuages makes the difference. Also There was difference of culture even back then with the indians of kashmir and the indians of south india.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
